The Army Corps of
Engineers received more than 55,000 comments on potential changes
to managing the Missouri River. The comments came for states,
groups and individuals from across the U.S., Puerto Rico, Canada
and France.
The six-month comment period for the Revised Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the Missouri River ended Thursday, February 28.
The Corps presented six alternatives for managing the river for
public review and comment. They included the current water control
plan and the full range of flow changes described by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service as necessary to protect three bird and fish
species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The Corps conducted 20 public workshops and hearings from Helena,
Mont., to New Orleans, La. They drew more than 2,000 people.
Transcripts of the hearings are available at www.nwd.usace.army.mil.
In addition, people also provided written and electronic comments.
"We are really pleased that so many people participated in
this process," said Rosemary Hargrave, Master Manual Project
Manager. "This demonstrates that people believe what happens
on the Missouri River is important and that they want to be part of
their government's decision-making process. In addition to the oral
comments provided at the hearings, the written comments range for a
single sheet with a paragraph or two supporting or opposing an
alternative to entire boxes of material describing impacts in great
detail.
"In the coming weeks, we will be evaluating the comments to
ensure the adequacy and accuracy of our work on the revised draft
environmental impact statement. We must make sure we have
identified and evaluated the impacts of the alternatives on all
economic and environmental resources. All comments will be
addressed in the final EIS," she added.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement with a single preferred
alternative for managing the six Corps dams and reservoirs will be
released the end of May. This will be followed by a 30-day comment
period. Following a record of decision in October, public meetings
on the 2002-03 annual operating plan will be conducted in November.
Implementation of the revised Master Water Control Manual will
begin in March 2003.
| EDITOR'S NOTE: The
following opinion was written by Patty Judge - Iowa's
Agriculture Secretary |
ALTERING RIVER'S FLOW WOULD HURT IOWANS
Iowa's mighty rivers are as much a part of its history as our farm
heritage. Recent debate has centered on returning the Missouri
River to a more natural state, one nearer what Meriwether Lewis and
William Clark found in 1804. While it is a rather romantic thought,
it is not one that a reasonable person can entertain, any more than
we can return to horse and buggy transportation, country schools,
mud roads and outside toilets.
In 1944, a comprehensive plan, the Missouri River Basin Project,
was developed. This Army Corps of engineers' project called for the
development of water resources of the river and its tributaries,
draining an area of more than 500,000 square miles, constructing
dams with storage capacity of approximately 73 million acre-feet,
creating 2.6 million kilowatts of hydroelectric generation and
creating a navigable channel on the river from Sioux City to St.
Louis. Six dams, located in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota,
have been built on the mainstem river to date.
These projects were undertaken in part with the idea of regulating
the flow of water as a flood-control measure. Those of us who
remember the devastating river flooding not so long ago are not
eager to return to that situation. The projects have worked very
well, allowing for commerce, energy production and agriculture to
develop along the river corridor.
The corps is now considering a change in its management of the
Missouri River. Most of the proposed alternatives would decrease
the flow of water from Gavin's Point Dam in South Dakota south
along Iowa in the summer and would increase the flow of water in
the spring months.
The current proposal would return the Missouri to only a
semi-natural state between Sioux City and Kansas City. The upper
river is not part of the proposal, and removal of the dams is not
being considered. The only stretch of the river to be adversely
affected is the section that borders Iowa. If the goal were to
restore the Missouri to pre-1944 status, in addition to downstream
flooding, that would require removal of upstream dams.
I cannot believe that removing flood-control dams could be viewed
as sound thinking. But unless we are willing to adopt that type of
thinking, we are not talking about total river restoration.
While the area under consideration includes only a small stretch of
the Missouri, that stretch is vitally important to our state. The
proposed changes would have a profoundly negative impact on
agriculture and many individuals and communities in Iowa that
depend on agriculture.
Some of the proposed reductions of summer flows would devastate
navigation on the Missouri. The availability of water
transportation keeps rail and trucking prices competitive.
According to a Tennessee Valley Authority study, this results in
savings of $43.1 million to Iowa every year and more than $200
million annually for the entire region.
Increasing spring flows increases the risk of flooding and drainage
problems on nearly 1.4 million acres of farmland in Iowa, Nebraska,
Kansas and Missouri. Higher groundwater levels associated with an
increased spring flow could also limit timing for crop planting and
production for farms near the river.
Finally, nearly 40 percent of Iowa's power needs are met by
facilities on the Missouri. According the corps' Environmental
Impact Statement, Western Area Power Administration rates could
rise by up to 30 percent for many customers, including urban
consumers in Council Bluffs, Sioux City and Des Moines.
A proposed "demonstration" project, trying out theories
of flooding in the spring and restricting water in the summer for
10 years, is currently being discussed by states of the basin
association and the corps.
Gov. Tom Vilsack has very wisely rejected that notion. After all,
there would not be much left of a farming operation after repeated
flooding. Furthermore, there have been no serious conversations
with area landowners about the economic effects of such actions or
compensation for such losses.
Some of the changes as currently proposed by the corps would result
in economic hardship for Iowa farmers, increase energy costs for
Iowa consumers and end navigation on the river. Implementation of
these changes would affect nearly every Iowan.
There has to be a better solution for Iowa. Let's keep working
together to find it. 
|
US
Army Corps of Engineers
